Jump to content

Michel Lucas


crazy4u
This topic is 6798 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I remember in the past Michel Lucas advertised himself as an escort. Now he is doing big as a porn producer and occasionally stars himself. His pictures are awesome. Did anyone use him as an escort in the past? How was it? Does anyone know if he still escorts ? Any contact info ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting sidelight about Lucas. A while ago he made a big deal about not hiring actors for his films if they had performed in bareback videos. (The big deal included statements published in the gay press, of a very self-righteous nature.) But recently a friend brought to my attention that Lucas is featuring in a recent release an actor who has appeared under other names in some bareback videos. Of course some porn actors use different names when they appear in different studios' productions and sometimes it is difficult to tell if it is the same person because they change their "look" so radically, so my friend could be mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UWSMan2's description is absolutely right.

 

Michael Lucas made a big publicity-seeking deal a while back, supporting McCarthyite policies whereby any porn "actor" ever appearing in a bareback film would be blackballed from the industry and not be allowed to work.

 

Needless to say, after generating all of that moralizing publicity for himself (which seems to be his ONLY goal - Michael Lucas has a film "studio" that spends WAY MORE money on production than it takes in on sales - WAY MORE - and would be bankrupt if not for the fact that he lives off of his rich old boyfriend), he then goes and hires barebacking actors.

 

Here's the scoop from http://www.DamonKruezer.com/ (one of the few sources on the Internet to read about the real dirt on the porn industry, if you are so moved to do so):

 

8/13/05

______________________

 

WORDS AND ACTIONS: WHAT MICHAEL LUCAS SAYS AND WHAT He DOES

 

Derrick Hanson: Barebacker

 

We can clearly see the model "Derrick" appearing in "Bangin' Zack Raw" on Studmall is the same Derrick recently used in Michael Lucas' "Fire Island Cruising 7" (see below). This seems to be a clearly hypocritical move on the part of Lucas who appears to be preaching one thing but practicing another. Well Michael - you're quick to judge others,what's your answer to THIS one?

 

http://www.studmall.com/videos/Raw

 

 

 

Derrick Hanson: Condom Model for Lucas Entertainment in Effusive Thank-You to Lucas for "FIC 7" role

 

from LUCASBLOG 8/05/05 by Michael Lucas

 

http://www.lucasblog.com/index.html

 

 

 

Lucas affirms unqualified support for Titan's no hiring bareback actors policy:

 

 

 

http://www.planetout.com/health/hiv/?sernum=2784

 

"While studios such as Lucas Entertainment and Channel 1 Releasing (together with director Chi Chi LaRue) expressed unqualified support, other studios, like Raging Stallion, HotHouse Entertainment, Falcon Studios and Jet Set productions reaffirmed their own on-set anti-barebacking policies while refraining from endorsing Titan's exact means or reasoning.

 

Titan Media will not knowingly hire any model or performer who has previously appeared in films that depict or portray 'barebacking' or unprotected anal sex," the statement read. "During our model application process, potential models will be asked about any previous involvement in 'bareback' films.

 

"Any potential model that has performed in any film featuring 'barebacking' will automatically be disqualified from performing in a Titan Media or ManPlay production."

 

The policy also calls for the disqualification from Titan's stable any actor who had appeared in previous Titan or ManPlay films but afterward had gone on to perform in barebacking films for other studios."

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_August_17/ai_n6151499#continue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Michael Lucas made a big publicity-seeking deal a while back,

>supporting McCarthyite policies whereby any porn "actor" ever

>appearing in a bareback film would be blackballed from the industry

>and not be allowed to work.

 

Reign it in, missy. Michael Lucas has no more power to blackball a performer than you do, and you know it. But it sounds oh so much more sensational to describe it as McCarthyism, doesn't it?

 

For a McCarthyite blackball situation to happen, one individual would need to have the power to prevent a performer from working across the entire industry. That is not the case. Far from it.

 

Michael Lucas stated that HE would not hire a bareback performer. It affects HIS videos, not anyone else's.

 

But it's become bloodsport to yell MCCARTHYISM, and then HYPOCRITE when one performer slips through the cracks.

 

Doesn't make it so.

 

The problem with making something foolproof is the universe keeps making better fools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this concern had been better placed if it had been a SEPARATE thread? The originator of the thread wanted responses regarding Michael Lucas's availablity to the escort scene, not ML's views regarding his hiring practices.

 

I'm not adverse to having this issued aired; I do resent having threads railroaded by other topics that tend to mar the initial one!

 

Come on fellows, write SEPARATE threads involving important issues instead of tagging them on another thus marring the original! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Reign it in, missy. Michael Lucas has no more power to

>blackball a performer than you do, and you know it. But it

>sounds oh so much more sensational to describe it as

>McCarthyism, doesn't it?

 

You obviously are lacking in any historical sense of any kind about McCarthyism, which - unsurprisingly - isn't deterring you at all from pontifficating about it.

 

There was no one central authority in the 1950s to blackball writers, playwrights, actors or anyone else. Individual studios and production companies and investors caved into pressure from McCarthyite sentiment by simply refraining from hiring anyone with a potentially communist past - just as companies like Michael Lucas' are doing with any porn actors with a barebacking past. The analogy couldn't be more perfect.

 

Moreover, the whole point of the article I posted, which you obviously failed to read (or understand) - even though you thereafter expressed opinions on it - is that Michael Lucas vocally supported the polices ANNOUNCED BY OTHER STUDIOS FIRST to freeze out these actors and refuse to hire them, and Lucas then agreed that he would adopt them.

 

Thus, this is not simply a single, isolated decision by Michael Lucas, as you dishonestly suggested. Instead, it is an industry-wide effort to deny people their livlihood and to use pressure tactics (such as refusing to provide ad space or various means of exclusion and stigma) to coerce everyone else to go along with it - exactly what you yourself say is necessary for accusations of McCarthyism to be warranted.

 

Finally, like so many others here, you object to accusations of "hypocrisy" without addressing the basis for the accusation - that Lucas publicly preaches a standard ("refuse to hire actors who have appeared in barebacking vidoes") which he himself fails to adhere to. Only someone who does not know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" would deny that such behavior constitutes the core meaning of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Would this concern had been better placed if it had been a

>SEPARATE thread? The originator of the thread wanted responses

>regarding Michael Lucas's availablity to the escort scene, not

>ML's views regarding his hiring practices.

 

Really, what difference does it make? The conversation started by the poster here about Michael Lucas's escorting naturally led to a discussion of his porn producer activities when one of the posters raised it. Those interested in discussing it have done so.

 

If there is anyone who wants to add to the discussion about Michael Lucas' escorting activities, is there anything stopping them from doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what you're saying simply isn't happening, Doug. How else to you explain that Shawn Storm is still working? Or Jeff Palmer? Or any of the DOZENS of guys making bareback films?

 

They are still working.

 

Chi Chi LaRue has had a similar policy for years. I don't see you calling him a McCarthyist. Have some performers slipped through? You betcha! No porn producer can possibly have personal knowledge about every project a performer has been in. He's human. Mistakes will happen.

 

Most performers know that if they perform in BB videos, they risk not working for Chi Chi, Lucas, Titan, or Falcon. They take the risk knowingly. Some get away with it, others get caught. They can still work for MSR, AllWorlds, JetSet, Studio2000, Raging Stallion, or Daddy OHHH (to name a few) without even mentioning any bareback-only companies.

 

If a guy wants work (and is worth watching) he can find someone willing to film it.

 

There is no industry-wide blacklist.

 

Why does this upset you so? Did Lucas turn you down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>But what you're saying simply isn't happening, Doug. How else

>to you explain that Shawn Storm is still working? Or Jeff

>Palmer? Or any of the DO0ZENS of guys making bareback films?

 

Yes, some of the blackballed actors are able to produce their own films, or find small producers to employ them - just like blacklisted writers and actors in the 1950s produced their own plays or found brave producers willing to employ them.

 

The fact that some of the blacklisted actors can find work doesn't mean that this isn't McCarthyism. The fact that they are being systematically excluded from a huge portion of the industry based upon their supposed "bad acts" proves that it is.

 

>Chi Chi LaRue has had a similar policy for years. I don't see

>you calling him a McCarthyist.

 

Anyone who has a policy of blacklisting actors simply because they have appeared in barebacking films is engaging in McCarthyite behavior.

 

The reason this behavior is particularly disgusting is because so many of the studios who rail against bareback porn sell the shit out of "pre-condom" porn - lots and lots and lots of barebacking.

 

They want to do everything possible to block new bareback porn from getting made -not because they are morally committed to anything, but because by blocking new barebacking, they ensure they keep a monopoly on barebacking videos (by far the most profitable types of films) via their "pre-condom" stock.

 

It's one of the most disgusting acts of deceit I have seen in awhile, but there is no shortage of idiots to fall for it.

 

>Most performers know that if they perform in BB videos, they

>risk not working for Chi Chi, Lucas, Titan, or Falcon. They

>take the risk knowingly. Some get away with it, others get

>caught. They can still work for MSR, AllWorlds, JetSet,

>Studio2000, Raging Stallion, or Daddy OHHH (to name a few)

>without even mentioning any bareback-only companies.

 

As I said, blacklisted actors and writers could find work, too, among those brave enough to withstand the McCarthyite blacklash. That doesn't mitigate the evil and danger of blacklisting behavior.

 

>Why does this upset you so? Did Lucas turn you down?

 

I find the self-righteous moralizing of porn producers - and, even worse, the attempt to destroy people's livlihood based upon their sexual past - to be one of the most inane and ludicrious things I have ever seen - especially for the ones who reap lots of profits selling barebacking vidoes but think that it's ok because they were made before 1980 (i.e., videos filmed before the people in the videos actually died, but during the time when they got the virus that killed them).

 

Destroying people's livlihood, or significantly impeding it, simply to make yourself look better is a wretched and contemptible act for anyone with a conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Destroying people's livlihood, or significantly impeding

>it,

>>simply to make yourself look better is a wretched and

>>contemptible act for anyone with a conscience.

>

>

>Attention K-Mart shoppers: 'Pot calling kettle black.'

 

This is quite an odd posting, Benji. You and your lonely, obsequious drones keep saying how much I and those like me are helping your career - how all of the attention we bring to you does nothing but line your pockets and get you new throngs of sad, needy clients ready to turn cash over to you. You yourself make that claim on an almost weekly basis when you write to claim how all the negative attention you get does wonders for your traffic and bank account.

 

And yet now, you seem to be saying the exact opposite: that the exposés we publish about you are actually "destroying, or at least singificantly impeding, your livelihood."

 

I at least think that you're to be complimented on finally addressing this issue with candor, as unintentional as it was.

 

Stumbling into and revealing the truth accidentally and unwittingly is preferable - albeit barely - than actively concealing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>or find small producers to employ them

 

The good folks (and they are good folks) at Raging Stallion, JetSet, AllWorlds, and Studio2000 would bristle at that description. Each of those companies is actually bigger (in both product shipped and personnel) than either Lucas Ent. or Channel 1 (Chi Chi).

 

Since your entire argument is based on this fallacy, I won't bother reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Michael Lucas writes about the barebacking issue. I think we all should read this before we jump to conclusions and bash him here at the board. By the way, I started to ask about his escort business. Would be nice to get some more answers on that topic !

 

Michael Lucas writes on his blog :

"a lesson we rarely remember: don’t jump to conclusions. Not sure how much you’ve heard about the latest porn controversy – "Rawgate." In the last few days the reputation of an up-and-coming star, Derrick Hanson, has been almost ruined. Rumors of him appearing in a bareback scene has gotten gay blogs in a frenzy. My fellow computer geeks, maybe next time you’re about to trash someone’s career, check you’re Goddamn facts. Geesh.

 

Derrick Hanson, a studly young lad and newcomer to the biz, made quite the exquisite splash in the porn industry. He’s done a few films, some for major studios such as Raging Stallion and Falcon. More recently, he appeared in my last production, Fire Island Cruising 7.

 

Then one day a scandal explodes all over the Web - clueless bloggers condemning him for his behavior and me for using a former bareback model in my films. What the fuck?

 

It appears Mr. Hanson has a past, a raw one. But not the way you might think. Unlike these other idiots, I actually bothered to go to the horse’s dick. I e-mailed Derrick asking him, “Is this true? Did you do what they say you did?” Everyone knows I would never hire a model who appears in those kinds of movies. I think they’re wrong and I don’t want anything to do with them.

 

This is what the kid has to say. I believe him. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him and working with him, and I think he’s a good boy. But judge for yourself. Why listen to a retarded porn star like me?

 

“Dear Michael, I only recently heard just a little about what is going on. Titan called me and briefly mentioned that you were getting some emails saying I was in barebacking films and they wanted to know more about before they hired me to be in the upcoming Joe Gage film. I really don't know what else people have written to you about or what exactly they are saying. Though I do I know exactly which film Titan was talking about, it is called "Banging Zack Raw" and was realeased by a small Dallas company called XmaleVideo and distributed by Stud Mall.

 

When I first saw this movie in stores, I was very upset myself. Initially, I was told the film was suppose to be called "Banging Zack"... not "Banging Zack Raw"! Also I was not aware that it was going to be marketed as a barebacking movie. It is true that every scene in it, EXCEPT FOR MINE, is bareback. However, MY scene in that movie is NOT bareback! Anyone who actually watches the movie can plainly see that I am wearing a condom!! Just watch the movie for yourself and you will see that I am obviously wearing a condom! I even called the producer of the movie after I saw it in stores and saw that I was on the cover with a big "BAREBACK" sticker on it and expressed my surprise and concern with him. He told me it was the distributers that changed the name and chose the cover art... and that there isn’t anything he or I could do to change it. I don't have time right now to discuss this issue any further, but I wanted to just explain to you and your readers that I did NOT bareback in the film in question!”

 

I checked the film. Derrick is in fact the only actor wearing a condom. Amazing. How can anyone do that to an actor? To the producers of the film, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not just for sending the wrong message to people when it comes to safe-sex (or lack-there-of), but for playing with people’s reputation like it’s yours for the playing. You give the rest of us a bad name.

 

And to my fellow bloggers, I’ve been reading some of your tired banter; cruel, cheap shots below the belt calling me a hypocrite, an opportunist. So quick to pass judgment. I hope others are more forgiving toward you. I know I’m not."

So my fellow posters, what do you have to say ? But, please give me also some input on the escort subject!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axiom I totally agree with you. The original subject has nothing to do with the "new" subject introduced by Doug. I wish the moderator would not allow this constant hijacking. How many times do we have to debate the barebacking issue? Does every subject have to turn to this tired old war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Axiom I totally agree with you. The original subject has

>nothing to do with the "new" subject introduced by Doug.

 

I did not introduce the topic. The poster "UwsMan2", in post #3 in this thread, raised this issue by asking about the apparent hypocrisy in Michael Lucas' porn hiring practices. I answered his inquiry by telling him what I knew about it and linking to a site that discussed it.

 

I

>wish the moderator would not allow this constant hijacking.

 

There's a clear rule right in the Forum Rules that quite clearly provides that any topics of any kind are permitted to be raised in any thread, whether related to the original topic or not, UNLESS the original post expressly requests that nobody write about anything other than the original topic. Since the original poster did not make such a request here, your request that the moderator act is just a petulant plea that the forum be shaped to your liking, even if it violates the announced rules.

 

>How many times do we have to debate the barebacking issue?

>Does every subject have to turn to this tired old war?

 

Is there anything stopping you or anyone else from posting whatever you want about Michael Lucas' escorting activities in this thread? No, I didn't think there was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Michael's releases this year features escort Tommy Deluca. Tommy appeared with Sean Storm in Storm Drain in a very very very obviously bareback scene.

 

Why does Miss Lucas employ and make a profit off of actors appearing in bareback movies when his stated policy claims otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ihpguy

"THEY" are trying to ruin this site. It isn't enough that they hijack so many posts. Most didn't appreciate the vitriol at theirs. And their tag always includes the ADVERTISEMENT for the other's address!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...